News from Greater Minnesota and South Dakota

Counties

Dec 31, 2016

The Swift County Monitor reports that Minnesota House Public Safety Chair Tony Cornish would like to lease the closed private prison in Appleton--and that Corrections Corporation of America has rebranded itself as CoreCivic.

Swift County is already gearing up to make another effort to get the State of Minnesota to lease or buy the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton.

At the county board’s meeting Dec. 19, Commissioner Gary Hendrickx, District 1-Appleton, reported that he and Commission Chair Pete Peterson, District 3-south Benson, had attended a meeting of representatives of lobbying firm Goff Public and CoreCivic, the owner of the prison.

CoreCivic is the new name of Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest owner of private prison facilities. It changed its name this past fall. . . .

Also at the meeting was District 17A state Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, and state Senator-elect Andrew Lang, R-Olivia. The meeting was called to formulate a strategy for lobbying the Legislature during the 2017 session. . . .

It has been estimated that reopening the prison would create 350 jobs for western Minnesota, have a $13 to $15 million payroll, and provide a significant boost to the local economies of the many small towns from which the employees come.

Hendrickx told fellow commissioners that it seems that the appetite to purchase isn’t as strong as it was last year; there is more of an appetite to lease, he said.

Republican Tony Cornish, chair of the state House’s Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee, seems to have more of an appetite for a lease, Hendrickx said. The lease doesn’t require the big upfront dollar amount a purchase would, he said.

Minnesota Democrat Gov. Mark Dayton, who has not looked at any use of the Appleton prison favorably, still has indicated he leans toward a purchase if it is done.

For the Appleton area, whether it is a lease or a purchase, it is the jobs that are important, Hendrickx said. But it is also important that the agreement that is reached whether a purchase or a lease shows a commitment to use the facility for the long term to ensure job stability, Hendrickx said. [emphasis added]

Unintentional humor? The story is filed under Death Notices. It's also clear from Commissioner Hendrickx that for Swift County, this thrust isn't about overcrowding or concern for the inmates, as was claimed during the session, but jobs.

[Miller] did manage to snag some campaign cash from Corrections Corporation of America's executives and their spouses, as well as from a couple of CCA corporate lobbyists. From his pre-general election report to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (available here):

All that money must be smooth as Tennessee whiskey for blunting the blow of rejection by Swift County's finest news source (We're not being snarly about the Monitor, whose editor is highly respected among country newspaper people).

Screenshot: We're not sure if the Swift County Monitor wanted to file this story under the obits.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

It's an article of faith among corporate lobbyists and public affairs storytellers--and the lawmakers from both parties who love them-- that those of us who live in Greater Minnesota loathe environmentalism.

Meet Johanna Rupprecht, the young woman from Winona County who is the Rochester Post Bulletin's Newsmaker of the Year. Rupprecht clarified rural values and organized people in Southeastern Minnesota to stand for those values.

On Nov. 22, the Winona County Board of Commissioners did something no other county in Minnesota — likely in the nation — had done. On a 3-2 vote, the board approved final language of an amendment to the Winona County Zoning Ordinance that effectively banned the mining, storage, processing and transportation of silica sand for fracking.

In the public gallery, as she had done for most board meetings, sat Johanna Rupprecht, the Lewiston native who was a key player — if not the key player — in making this historic moment happen.

After about 17 months of work focused on a ban in Winona County, Rupprecht said it took a moment or two for the final vote to sink in.

It had been such a long process," she said. "In spite of the threats and pressure from the frac sand industry, just the fact we built something so strong, that people built a case for it."

Passing the ban showed an example of democracy working the way it should, she said. That means people expressing their opinions and policymakers listening to their constituents to act upon their wishes. "For the vast majority of the people involved in this, it's about the big picture," she said -- the beauty of the land, the reduction of the use of fossil fuels and the environmental degradation both in Winona County and where the hydraulic fracturing occurs.

Her commitment to the cause was key in her selection as the Post Bulletin's Newsmaker of the Year. . . .

Rupprecht said she was just leading a cause in which she believed.

"The land has inherent value, not just to be used for profit by a few," she said. "Frac sand mining is too destructive. People see what it does to the land and the local communities, and they did not want that."

Read the profile at the Post Bulletin of this remarkable young woman who mobilized thousands. She spent some time in Big Stone County while an intern for Land Stewardship Project (it maintains a western field office in Montevideo), before returning to Winona County where she was raised. If that ain't country. . .

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Opposition to the project was spearheaded by the grassroots group Citizens Concerned About Rail Line. Members have cited a number of grievances with high-speed rail, including disruption of farmland and the threat of eminent domain [by the private entity for private profit].

Co-chair Heather Arndt said CCARL stayed engaged with MnDOT and local legislators in 2016 as well as researched NAHSR and its proposal.

"We have yet to find any means by which the proposed line produces any level of independent fiscal solvency or any proof that NAHSR's leadership has any experience in any aspect of a successful rail line," Arndt wrote in an email Dec. 15. . . .

Goodhue County Board adopted an update to the county's Comprehensive Plan in June featuring language that land-uses not specifically mentioned in the plan should not be assumed to have the county's approval — a change commissioners said was made to prevent projects like Zip Rail from claiming local support.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa said he has spoken with fellow Republicans Sen.-elect Mike Goggin and Rep.-elect Barb Haley of Red Wing to bring forward legislation to protect the interests of citizens in the upcoming session.

"Nowhere in the world is high-speed rail accomplished without massive public subsidies," Drazkowski said. "It is my responsibility to protect my constituents and the people of our fine state from suffering financially from yet another massive taxpayer liability that could accrue with any high-speed train effort." . . .

There's that. Read the entire article at the Republican Eagle.

Image: Those who thought that anti-high-speed-rail grassroots group CCARL was populated by hicks (like Gabby Johnson in his famous role as a rambling rail resister in Blazing Saddles) learned to their dismay instead that Greater Minnesotans are in reality a bit better at organizing than the hayseeds in Mel Brooks' fabulous satire.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

County staff said it needs to be able to offer nurses better pay so they will work at Public Health.

A new nurse is needed to replace one who left. Public Health Director Katy Kirchner said without the position, her department would need to cut programs dealing with maternal and child care, as well as case work with elderly residents.

County Administrator Deb Gruber said there [haven't] been any . . . applicants. . . .

Jensen notes that other counties and rural hospitals are having similar problems, and that Morrison County Board voted to re-advertise the position, bumping the starting pay up to $66,290 a year. Read the entire article at the Record.

Minnesota’s public health system can best be described as a state and local partnership. It was created with the passage of the Community Health Services Act (Minn. Stat. § 145A) in 1976, which was subsequently revised in 1987 and 2003. Now called the Local Public Health Act, the legislation delineates the responsibilities of the state (MDH) and city and county governments in the planning, development, funding, and delivery of public health services.

If and when the Republican legislature starts talking about belt-tighting for government so that taxes can be cut, will the cost for greater Minnesota counties to recruit skilled staff be weighed--or will all Minnesotans who follow through on the hard work required to become a health care professionals simply be asked to accept pay and benefit cuts to subvent those tax breaks? Will state general revenues that now pay for public health programs be shifted to other needs like roads?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Photo: Once upon a time, recruiting public health nurses to rural areas wasn't too difficult.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Sand mining in Minnesota and Wisconsin boomed and waned along with the oil and gas production practice known as hydrofracking.

The particular kind of sand found in parts of southeast Minnesota was in huge demand by exploration companies, which use it to prop open cracks in the underground shale formations that produce oil and natural gas. . .

[Frac sand] Opponents fear destruction of scenic bluffs along the Mississippi River, health problems from blowing silica sand dust, contamination of groundwater, and damage to roads and more accidents from the trucks that cart sand to and from transportation hubs. . . .

“People had their say and the local officials followed the will of the people,” she [Land Stewardship Project organizer Johanna Rupprecht] said. “They put the best interests of the citizens in the county and of the land of the county ahead of what’s best for the frac sand industry.”

Rupprecht had interned for the Land Stewardship Project's western Minnesota office earlier this decade, but went home to Winona County, where her family farms near Lewiston, to organize with her neighbors. Our stretch of the prairie's loss is Winona County's gain as this talented young person returned to her home county.

Supporters of the ban have been vocal for several years to move the process forward, citing concerns with water and air quality, health effects on county residents and reclamation possibilities, as well as the ability of the Winona County planning department staff to oversee the industry given its size, resources and workload.

Commissioner Greg Olson, the leading proponent of the ban from its first proposal, an issue that in some ways defined his successful re-election campaign, maintained that the majority of the people he heard from supported the ban.

“I’d put more weight on the public that had spoken … than I do a letter from an attorney from Minneapolis,” Olson said, addressing ongoing concerns that an outright ban could invite legal challenges to the county. “I think (the people) have been very unanimous.”

The Winona County Board of Commissioners voted tonight to pass a ban on any new frac sand mining, processing, storage or transport operations in the southeastern Minnesota county’s jurisdiction. This step comes after a 17-month grassroots organizing campaign by county residents calling for a ban, led by members of the Land Stewardship Project (LSP).

For years, Winona County has been heavily targeted by the oil, gas and frac sand industry’s attempts to extract silica sand for use in hydraulic fracturing. Thousands of residents have opposed frac sand development due to its harmful impacts on the land, as well as on public health, safety and quality of life in local communities.

In June 2015, LSP members and supporters from across the county, many from neighborhoods that began fighting frac sand proposals several years earlier, set a goal of banning the industry outright, working to get Winona County to become the first county to do so.

“We felt a ban was needed for the health and well-being of people and the environment,” said Warren Township resident Barb Nelson. “And the vast majority of residents in the county agreed. I hope other counties are encouraged by the step we’ve taken to take a firm stand against the frac sand industry.”

During Winona County’s process of considering the ban this summer and fall, an average of 80 percent of public comments received were in favor of the ban.

“The bluffs here are full of the kind of sand this industry wants,” said Joe Morse of Wilson Township. “We’ve seen what’s happened where the frac sand industry operates in Wisconsin — bluffs are leveled and the landscape is destroyed. Winona County residents love the natural beauty of this land and want to protect it.”

Members of LSP’s Winona County Organizing Committee applauded the passage of the ban as a major victory for people and the land and as an example of local democracy at its best.

“I feel grateful we have a County Board with the wisdom to listen to the people they were elected to serve, and make the decision to prioritize public health and safety over the profit of a few,” said Wiscoy Township resident Kelley Stanage.

The County Board passed the ban by a 3-2 vote in the form of an amendment to Winona County’s existing zoning ordinance. It prohibits any new operations for the production of industrial minerals, including the silica sand used in hydraulic fracturing.

“I am relieved that we have protected our water and our vulnerable populations from frac sand operations,” said Lynnea Pfohl, a resident of Homer Township. “As a mother of young children, it’s also important to me that we were able to take this step locally towards tackling climate change, by putting our sand off limits for oil and gas production.”

While the overwhelming majority of public input from Winona County residents consistently favored the ban, the measure was fiercely opposed by the Minnesota Industrial Sand Council and other representatives of the frac sand industry.

“The story here is one of local residents taking on outside corporate interests bent on exploiting our communities and the land,” said LSP organizer Johanna Rupprecht. In Winona County, we’ve shown that people power can defeat corporate power. People can win when we organize and work together.”

Congratulations to the many citizens in Winona County who worked so long to protect what they cherish.

Photo: A frac sand mine.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Bluestem is left to guess that opponents of new passenger rail lines--and the use of eminent domain to secure some of the property upon which those rails would be laid--had other issues that led them to vote for Donald Trump for president.

Last March, Trump compared the United States rail system to that of a third world country. He lauded China for quickly building a nationwide high-speed rail system. "[The Chinese] have trains that go 300 miles per hour," said Trump. "We have trains that go chug-chug-chug."

During his election night victory speech, Trump emphasized that one of his top priorities will be funding a massive infrastructure program that could include high-speed rail projects across the nation.

Infrastructure has been a hot topic over the last few weeks, and it’s one thing both political parties agree on. America’s bridges, roads, airports and schools need improvement and President-elect Donald Trump has promised a lot of investment. The markets have noticed. Copper and iron ore are up — a lot. But commodities are volatile, so it's unclear how long this spike will last.

Trump’s plan calls for tax relief for private businesses that invest in infrastructure projects. In doing so, the plan said, the national debt would not increase. Heidi Crebo-Rediker, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and CEO of International Capital Strategies, said private investment can be good, but this plan only includes private investment.

"If you look at this as a taxpayer, do you pay your taxes to fund infrastructure investment that can then rely on cheap government borrowing to invest in those projects?" she asked,"or do you go down the path where you have equity investors that will invest and then borrow what would be more expensive funds?"

And whose privately built projects would require user fees — for example, tolls on new bridges and roads. . . .

Why does that suggest to Bluestem that President-elect Trump will think a privately-funded (with tax breaks for wealthy investors) high-speed rail line is "huge"?

As for Mr. Trump's thoughts on the use of eminent domain by private investors for private gain, we recommend reading Ilya Somin's 2015 article in the Washington Post, Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse. Somin writers in part:

. . . On this issue, unlike most others, Trump has been consistent over time. When the Supreme Court narrowly upheld “economic development” takings that transfer property to private parties in the 2005 Kelo case, the ruling was widely denounced on both left and right. But Trump defended it stating that “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.” The feral cats who currently occupy the condemned land probably agree. Trump did not merely claim that the decision was legally correct; he argued that it was “good” to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote “economic development.”

Both the Kelo case and Trump’s efforts to benefit from eminent domain exemplify a longstanding pattern under which that power is used to take land away from the political weak and transfer it to influential private interests. In the long run, as cities like Detroit have learned, such assaults on property rights undermine development far more than they promote it. . . .

Ah! But losing a part of one's property so that rich investors can profit is just a small sacrifice Goodhue County landowners can contribute as we make America great again.

Image: Goodhue County is fly-over country for the as-yet imaginary elevated high speed rail line. This map from the NAHSRG website illustrates where the rails might run over the county.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

The Winona County Board of Commissioners took one big and nearly final step closer to a frac sand ban Tuesday night.

The board voted 3-2 to direct county staff to create official language around a ban, asking the county attorney’s office to form an ordinance to be voted on at the board’s Nov. 22 meeting.

The two dissenting commissioners, Marcia Ward and Steve Jacob, both objected for a variety of reasons, ranging from not feeling the comprehensive plan and submitted documents had been explored adequately in terms of existing regulations, to reiterating that a full ban would discriminate against people in Winona County and the frac sand industry. . . .

The proposed amendment was drafted by Sonneman and draws from several examples, including Goodhue County’s Florence Township’s ban on silica sand mining for fracking and the Land Stewardship Project’s proposed ban language from the spring.

The legal analysis made several additions to the initial language, including making an argument for the amendment as it relates to the values in the county’s comprehensive plan and the purpose of the county’s zoning ordinance.

It also clarifies the distinctions between restrictions on different types of mineral excavation, extraction and land alteration by defining some as commercial minerals compared to industrial minerals.

It would not affect the inter-county or interstate commerce of sand by truck, rail or barge, and would only apply to new mines not grandfathered in, which were previous concerns with the ban.

Commissioners in support of the ban stood behind Sonneman’s legal analysis, and said that the ordinance would be formed with a strong legal language and supported the decision based on the information had been presented and studied.

Commissioner Marie Kovecsi said that the regulatory option proposed by the planning commission didn’t address issues she felt were important, like water and air quality, health effects on county residents and reclamation, to name a few.

“I’ve studied this issue from the onset,” said Kovecsi, who was active in frac-sand issues for years before her 2014 successful board run. “I feel I’ve done my homework.”

By the same 3-2 vote that has marked the Winona County Board of Commissioners' division on the mining and processing of silica sand for fracking, the board approved a ban on frac sand mining at Tuesday's meeting.

The ban did not come without several attempts to put off a decision or take the county in a direction other than a ban. But after several motions, commissioners James Pomeroy, Marie Kovecsi and Greg Olson voted in favor of the ban. Commissioners Marcia Ward and Steve Jacob voted against the ban.

The vote for the ban technically instructs the county attorney and planning staff to draft the final ordinance language to be adopted along with an order containing findings, conclusions and "order which supports and memorializes the Board's decision." Final language of the ordinance will be returned to the board by Nov. 22. . . .

Much like the board, five people stepped forward at the beginning of the meeting during the public comment period. There, too, three of the five favored a ban on frac sand mining.

Johanna Rupprecht, a policy coordinator for the Land Stewardship Project, a pro-ban organization, cited public opinion in favor of the ban based on those who commented at public hearings and during public comment periods.

"An average of 80 percent of people are for a ban," Rupprecht said. "In politics, you rarely get a clear mandate like this. Clearly this is the will of the people."

Winona County commissioners on Tuesday ordered the county attorney to finalize language that would make it the first county in Minnesota to ban the highly contentious industry of frac sand mining.

After lengthy discussion weighing several options, commissioners voted 3-2 for language that would impose an outright ban on all industrial mineral operations, including frac sand mining, that initially was proposed last spring. A final vote is expected at the board's Nov. 22 meeting.

The vote was "a big step forward for the ban" of all frac sand mining in the county, said Johanna Rupprecht of the Land Stewardship Project.

Mining supporters in the county have said they're trying to protect private property rights, provide new jobs and preserve the region's chance to cash in on new developments in the nation's oil industry. . . .

Opponents, however, still fear destruction of scenic bluffs along the Mississippi River, health problems from blowing silica sand dust, contamination of groundwater, and damage to roads and more accidents from the trucks that cart sand to and from transportation hubs.

We'll keep an eye on this developing story--and the results of the county board elections in seats where the issue has dominated the races as the Winona Daily News notes:

Jacob is running for re-election in the 3rd District against Vince Ready, an outspoken frac sand opponent. The issue has also dominated the 4th District race where Greg Olson, an advocate for the ban, is running for a third term against Brian Conner, who has said that frac sand is already appropriately regulated in the county.

Photo: Winona County bluff country.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Oct 12, 2016

Bluestem Prairie isn't the only voice in Greater Minnesota scrutinizing the tactic that we call "placebaiting," in which different regions of the state are played off against each other.

Most frequently, urban lawmakers are cast as villains, rural voters are the target, and Republicans are the perpetrators in this divisive rhetoric. Regional differences and needs do exist, but one region's gain doesn't automatically mean that another area must lose.

Let's not mince words: Minnesota's 2016 legislative session was, by and large, a massive failure. Political posturing led to the demise of the transportation bill and bonding bill, while a typo that would have cost the state $100 million compelled Gov. Mark Dayton to veto an otherwise good tax bill. . . .

There is plenty of blame to go around — and many sore fingers from all that pointing —but with just weeks until the election, it's time to stop complaining and start looking for solutions.

As voters, we need to ask the candidates and ourselves how things will be different in 2017. Whether we send back the same cast of characters or elect new ones, we need leaders who refuse to accept the inaction of the last biennium as the status quo. "Compromise" must be more than just a buzzword. It must be a course of action if we are going to see real results for Greater Minnesota.

Last session, it was disappointing to see that some rural legislators appeared to operate under the impression that in order to help Greater Minnesota, they needed to take something away from the metro area.

This strategy of attempting to hurt the metro — by cutting state aid to Minneapolis and St. Paul and preventing construction of light rail transit, even if it was paid for by metro-area dollars — proved to be counterproductive. Trying to poke holes in the metro's bucket did nothing to actually improve Greater Minnesota. Instead, it only fueled more of the divisiveness that prevents progress and harms our entire state.

This cannot continue. We need legislators who will focus on accomplishing good things for the communities they represent rather than devote their time and energy to trying to stop the other party or region from getting things they need. . . .

Read the whole column at the Grand Forks Herald. We think that it will likely be published in newspapers across the state.

Carlson and Smiglewski serve as president and vice president, respectively, of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Aug 07, 2016

We've frequently written about one of the conspiracy theories that's a staple in the diet of fear on the right in parts of Minnesota: Agenda 21, and we're not the only one in Minnesota to call whatever on this malarky. Over four years ago, John Gilmore wrote in the Minnesota Conservatives post, Agenda 21: Because There's More Room For Crazy:

Thought hemp, raw milk and ending the Fed was the sum of craziness currently infiltrating the Republican Party of Minnesota? Think again. Agenda 21 is the next big thing in making a political party entirely irrelevant in Minnesota. . . .

Members of the Morrison County Board of Commissioners said they’re satisfied with the comprehensive plan for the county. Still, some members of the public are less than thrilled. . . .

One issue present at both the planning meeting and the Planning Commission’s public hearing July 25, was local versuss regional control and more specifically, Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is a UN created plan for sustainable living local governments can choose to follow. Critics say the plan can be used to take away property rights.

“The reason we are concerned about this wording is how it has been used in other parts of the country,” Greg Smith said.

Smith and others were looking for the county to add protective language into the plan saying it would not follow outside mandates on issues like open/green spaces. These are areas that can’t be developed and are used for things like parks or community gardens..

Commissioner Kevin Maurer proposed an added piece to the plan addressing local control.

“The county comprehensive plan is not intended to or meant to be a means by which local control is given to any other entity. It is a plan meant to encourage and support local control,” Maurer said at the July 25 public hearing.

His statement was added to the draft the commissioners looked at Tuesday. The commissioners said they were OK with the plan, but residents Richard and Shirley Japp were not.

“There is still not anything in the plan about Agenda 21,” Richard said.

Maurer asked whether or not it would hurt the county to add language specifically saying the county doesn’t accept the directives of Agenda 21 and other regional plans. . . .

Alrighty then. How prescient was the Minnesota legislature to authorize comprehensive planning years before the conference in Rio? Bwwaahhhaaaa....

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

The county-wide frac sand ban debate took a few small steps forward Thursday night, but will be the subject of several more meetings.

The Winona County Planning Commission will continue discussion on a proposed county ban on industrial sand mining, particularly as it relates to silica sand for fracking, on Aug. 8, Aug. 11 and Aug. 15.

Questions of what information is needed to continue that discussion and to make a decision, and how staff should be directed to request it, dominated Thursday' night's meeting. . . .

Despite not having any more public hearings on the issue, written opinions are being accepted until August 1.

Aug. 16 is the deadline for the recommendation to the Winona County Board of Commissioners, at which point they could recommend to accept, deny or modify the ordinance change.

For earlier coverage of this issue, see the posts below.

Photo: A frac sand mine. Residents of Winona County have organized to pressure the County Board to pass an ordinance banning the boom-and-bust industry inside the county's borders. They want land use that promotes farming and tourism, sustainable job growth, safe roads, and environmental protection.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Jul 19, 2016

Winona County is in the process of considering an ordinance banning frac sand mining; mining opponents worry about the consequences of the boom-and-bust industry on the county's natural beauty, farmland, safety, economy and health.

I have been a practicing municipal and trial lawyer for 43 years, and my wife and I have been stewards of our sustainable, solar-powered 355-acre farm in Winona County's New Hartford Township since 1996. I applaud the well-reasoned legal analysis of the Winona County attorney advising the county board of its solid legal authority to prohibit industrial mining. The proposed amendment to the county zoning ordinance prohibiting industrial mining, drafted by the county attorney, is legally solid. The ordinance was the subject of a recent public hearing before the county planning commission.

Specifically, some of the stated purposes of the proposed ordinance prohibiting industrial mining include: to protect natural landscapes from excessive excavation and mining activity; protect water resources, streams and rivers; protect agricultural land, existing recreational and tourism businesses, residents' health and safety; and prevent the industrialization of agricultural land and open space and minimize road and bridge damage. Undeniably, these are laudable life values and goals that will serve to promote and enhance the world-class beauty and economic strength of Winona County and the health and life quality of its residents.

These stated purposes of the proposed ordinance are foundationally based on the county zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, and the members of the county planning commission are duty-bound to follow both. Furthermore, at the recent public hearing on this proposed ordinance, the overwhelming majority of Winona County residents in attendance encouraged the planning commission members to recommend adoption of the ordinance by the county board.

Unfortunately, I anticipate that some commission members may suggest that they have concerns about the legality of the proposed ordinance, or raise their concern about the potential threat of a court challenge by the mining industry. Those same commission members may attempt to use these fabricated concerns as reasons to vote against the proposed ordinance. Doing so would require them to ignore the well-reasoned legal opinion of the county attorney and reject the expressed will of county residents. It would be disingenuous for any commission member to speciously raise meritless legal concerns as reasons to vote against the ordinance and the will of the people. [emphasis added]

Photo: The crowd at the Winona County Planning Commission hearing at the Tau Center on June 30, 2016. Photo by Bobby King, via twitter.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Jul 01, 2016

On Thursday night, the Winona County Planning Commission heard public testimony on the county's proposed ordinance to ban the mining of frac sand (silica sand). News reports and social media shared during the event reveal overwhelming support for the ban.

About 200 people packed the rotunda of the Tau Center on the West Campus at Winona State University to answer Margaret Lambert's question: "To ban, or not to ban?"

Lambert, a Winona resident, was one 74 people to address the Winona County Planning Commission as it opened its public hearing Thursday on a proposed ban on silica sand mining for the industrial purpose of hydraulic fracturing. Of the 74 individuals who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, 15 opposed the ban and 59 supported the ban.

As for Lambert, she answered her own question by asking the commission where the funds for a mining expert to write regulations would come from and how much it would cost, and where the funds for enforcement of any regulations would come from and how much it might cost. "Who will pay for damage to the environment?" she asked. . . .

Reasons to support the ban ran a broad spectrum. From the costs of enforcing regulations to the damage caused, both financial and ecological. Some brought up the trustworthiness of the mining industry. . . .

The debate over whether to ban frac sand in Winona County took center stage Thursday in the city.

The Tau Center on Winona State University’s west campus — a venue selected specifically because of the interest in the issue, with the meeting moved from the small county government center — was filled Thursday night for the county planning commission’s first step in discussing the county’s proposed frac sand ban.

The public hearing was strictly to receive public comment, with any final decision left to the county board in late summer or early fall, but the groundswell of support for a ban was immediately evident Thursday. . . .

Dozens of people spoke in the meeting. The speakers for the ban outnumbered those against it by wide margins, but both were represented as the discussion moves forward toward a potential fall vote by the county board.

Those against the ban mostly spoke about the use of regulation, and about not using picking and choosing between uses of the fine, round sand that’s been favored for fracking operations in Texas and elsewhere in the country. . . .

Check out the rest at the WDN. Social media buzzed with the twitter hashtag #fracsandban(and without). Some representative tweets:

We'll have more on this story as it develops. Bluestem Prairie has been following Minnesota's frac sand mining debate since 2011.

Photo: The crowd at the hearing at the Tau Center. Photo by Bobby king, via twitter.

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Jun 27, 2016

A reader sent us a reminder of another undelivered promise made by Wendy Meadley, strategic director of North American High Speed Rail Group. In Michael Brun's April 2, 2016 article in the Red Wing Republican Eagle, Comment period opens on high-speed rail, the staff writer reported:

Minnesota-based North American High Speed Rail Group will accept comments through April 29, either submitted online at www.nahsr.com or mailed to 8009 34th Ave. South, Bloomington, MN 55425.

“NAHSR is currently in a preliminary study process to assess if there is a business case to pursue the project further,” according to a news release. The business says it will incorporate comments and input from planned public meetings when making a decision to proceed.

UPDATE: A reader called our attention to the full press release here at Slideshare. The press release states:

Prior to the completion of the Preliminary Study period, NAHSR will participate in a Town Hall public engagement session. Information about the session will be posted on NAHSR’s website and communicated via press release to regional media, and sent via email to NAHSR’s option database. To be included in NAHSR’s ongoing public communication, you can sign up for the database at http://nahsr.com/contact-nahsr/.

The Town Hall never happened. Here's the image downloaded from Slideshare:

It's not as if the group enjoys a reputation for transparency. Back in early October 2015, Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa wrote in Covert high-speed rail behavior needs scrutiny, op-ed commentary published in the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Recently, the North American High Speed Rail Group entered the fray. It's looking to build a high-speed rail line from Bloomington to Rochester along the Highway 52 corridor, supposedly on its own.

So what do we know about this outfit? . . .

Draz walks readers through elements of the now-discarded business plan, then raises points about the way "this outfit" operates:

I recently wrote a letter to the Federal Rail Administration to share my growing concerns over this project and to relay the numerous issues that are causing elevated angst levels from my constituents. They include:

• Lack of transparency: The stated FRA process of an open, publically engaged fact-finding mission for Zip Rail simply isn't happening. We've seen multiple examples of public meetings either not posted or publicized in local papers, delayed or abruptly canceled, creating the impression that public input really isn't wanted because the high-speed rail outcome has been predetermined. Some of the cities that would fall within the proposed corridor were never notified of upcoming meetings.

• Authenticity of community adviser committee: This group seems to be nothing more than a rubber-stamp assembly purposed to create the illusion of seeking community input while "checking-the-box" for the FRA approval process. To date, it's held one meeting.

• Lack of support for Zip Rail: My constituents aren't the only ones expressing doubt. Last session, the Minnesota House passed a bill prohibiting the use of government money to fund a Zip Rail project, ensuring eminent domain will not be used to build it and requiring any developer to demonstrate the ability to pay for the full costs if Zip Rail fails. There have been numerous formal resolutions and strongly worded letters of opposition to Zip Rail from many Minnesota cities, townships, counties, farm groups and individual citizens. None of these entities finds public benefit from the proposal. . . .

It's a good thing that Bluestem is indexed in Nexis, or those investors doing due diligence on this project might never learn that those "planned public meetings" never happened--or if they did, NAHSRG forgot to tell anyone along the route about them. Or other phantom projects once associated with the corporation.

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Jun 25, 2016

Is Poker Wendy Meadley bluffing again--or is she just have to have a grift?

In Group pushes ahead with high-speed rail plans, the Post Bulletin's Heather Carlson reports that the new moneymaker Meadley is shaking for the $4.2 billion, maybe-not-so-high-speed, 77-mile-long passenger rail line between the Twin Cities and Rochester is to become the world's most expensive package delivery system:

The company is also looking to incorporate freight for "small, high-value" items. She referenced the potential to ship packages to consumers same day via the rail line. Seeking to develop real estate in connection with the proposed rail line also remains a key part of the plan. . . .

The company is also considering building four stops along the line. One would be known as the "North Terminal" and would likely be built in Bloomington near the Minnesota-St. Paul International Airport. Another stop would be constructed in a southern metro suburb to allow commuters to hop aboard. Up for debate is whether to build one or two stations in Rochester — one downtown and another at the airport. . . .

This seems like a very pricey way to duplicate service that's already provided by UPS, Fedex and other carriers using the existing roads and airports. But perhaps Meadley feels to have another reason to confiscate property along the line via eminent domain so her investors can prosper when developing that seized real estate.

Meanwhile, the freight rail guy and longtime Fedex employee advising the private group claims that if the no-so-high-speed rail isn't built, the smart people won't be able to deal with Highway 52 and they'll relocate to Denver, Beijing or Berlin. He tells Carlson:

Bill Goins, a longtime Fed Ex employee who serves on the MInnesota Freight Advisory Commission, has been advising the rail group. He said it makes sense to consider building a high-speed rail line between Rochester and the Twin Cities because of the massive Destination Medical Center economic development project. DMC is projected to add another 30,000 to 40,000 jobs in Rochester over the next 15 or 20 years. He said it's likely that some of those employees will live in the Twin Cities and commute to Rochester. That will put a heavy strain on the four-lane U.S. Highway 52, which is vital to commerce in the region.

"If we don't continue to be creative and innovative, we stand the chance of good companies, good employers saying, 'Hey, we could move to Denver or we could move to Beijing or we could move to Berlin' or whatever it might be, and our market loses," Goins said.

Currently, “we don’t see a lot of excess [transit] demand,” says Dan Holter, general manager of privately held Rochester City Lines, which operates coach-style buses for Rochester-bound commuters from the Twin Cities. “We’ve tried to add service going north, but people don’t want to transfer at Mall of America,” which would roughly be NAHSR’s terminus. Rail advocates point to inevitable gridlock on Hwy. 52 if DMC’s jobs vision is validated, but MnDOT says it has no data one way or another on that topic.

Will all those new Rochester workers be commuting from the Twin Cities--or living north of Rochester, thus clogging the roads? The Med City is also connected to Highway 14, a corridor of commerce that runs east-to-west, and some Mayo employees already chose to commute from small communities south of town like Chatfield.

But Meadley insists the company is making headway when it comes to convincing city and county officials to be open-minded about the project. She said the company will be looking to build a maintenance facility halfway along the line.

"That (maintenance facility) could be placed mid-corridor, so I think there are people in the counties and cities along the line that are open to exploring that before they condemn it because they want to see what the opportunities are," Meadley said.

In an article posted online Monday, Red Wing Republican Eagle's Michael Brun reports in County Board adopts Comprehensive Plan update that the Goodhue County Board has signaled that the North American High Speed Rail Group need to know what every frisky college student learns during freshman orientation: silence doesn't mean yes.

Brun reports in his lede:

Commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to adopt an update to the Goodhue County Comprehensive Plan, the first substantial revision in 12 years to the document that outlines the county’s vision for land use and future growth. Among the changes is a paragraph clarifying that land uses not mentioned in the plan should not be assumed to have the county’s support.

“So say a group advocating for, oh I don’t know, a Zip Rail project decided to say that, ‘Well, since Goodhue County does not explicitly take a stand against it, then we’re assuming that they’re for it,’” Board Chair Dan Rechtzigel said. “They can no longer make that statement.”

The plan also has a line requiring that new or proposed rail systems must provide a benefit to the county.

Assuming NAHSR moves forward and can raise sufficient capital, it still faces hurdles, say observers. The lack of public funding makes capital acquisition simpler; the same may not necessarily be true for capital deployment, however.

Opponents will be relieved to learn the Rochester train will face the same onerous, time-consuming, and lawsuit-inducing environmental reviews as a public project. “The environmental review is based on scope of the project, not who’s doing it,” says University of Minnesota law professor Alexandra Klass. (The U.S. Surface Transportation Board recently said it would take three years to complete environmental study of a proposed freight railroad bypass around Chicago.)

Fly-over counties aren't getting anymore friendly, either.

We'll continue to watch this shiny thing show as it keeps rising from the dead. In the meantime, passenger rail to Duluth (the rail lines already exist for the Northern Lights Express, so the cost would be far less) --or high speed rail directly to Chicago--would be better investments on the public or private dime than this.

Image: Will the zombie ziprail mutate into zombie package delivery?

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Plan to attend the public hearing June 30 and help spread the word! It's particularly important for residents of rural areas of Winona County where frac sand operations have been proposed -- like the Saratoga Township and St. Charles area, The Arches, and Stockton -- to attend and make their voices heard.

The Winona County Planning Commission's public hearing on the frac sand ban will be Thursday, June 30th, 7:00-10:00 pm, at the Tau Center, 511 Hilbert St., according to the page.

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Jun 15, 2016

The Winona Daily News and Winona Post report that on Tuesday, the Winona County Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 on Tuesday to send the issue of banning most types of sand to the county planning commission.

The Winona County Board of Commissioners took a key step Tuesday toward a final decision on whether to ban most frac sand activity in the county.

The board voted 4-1 to send the issue to the county planning commission, which will have 60 days to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the county board. The county board will then be asked to make a final decision.

The vote followed similar lines as previous ones on the issue, including on April 26 when the board instructed planning staff and the county attorney to develop language for a ban on silica sand mining related to its use in fracking operations elsewhere in the county. . . .

The amendment’s language draws from several examples, including the Goodhue County Florence Township’s ban on silica sand mining for fracking, and the Land Stewardship Project’s proposed language for a ban.

The Winona County Planning Commission will have its hands full after Tuesday’s meeting. In a 4-1 vote, the County Board passed on a proposal to ban frac sand mining — defined as sand mining for industrial uses — to the Planning Commission. Jacob and Ward criticized the proposal as unfairly and illogically singling out frac sand from other sand mining industries. The proposal would allow construction sand mining.

Jacob said the proposal was “setting the table for a lawsuit,” but ultimately voted to pass the proposed ban on to the Planning Commission and a series of public hearings. The frac sand issue is an “open wound in the community,” Jacob said. There will never be closure unless the county goes through the process for considering this ban, he added. Ward voted against the proposal.

The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed frac sand ban before forwarding its recommendation to the County Board for another public hearing and a final vote.

Winona County commissioner Steve Jacob misleads the public and his constituents when he suggests that he and Winona County's frac sand rules played an important role in stopping the Minnesota Proppant frac sand processing plant in St. Charles in 2013. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That plant was stopped by the uproar of hundreds and hundreds of St. Charles area citizens that convinced the St. Charles City Council to scuttle the proposal. The plant would have been the largest frac sand plant in the U.S.

Winona County's very weak frac sand rules had nothing to do with stopping the proposal. And commissioner Jacob wasn't any help either. He was silent on the project and did not oppose it. The only public record I know of regarding Jacob and the project is the financial contribution made to Jacob's 2012 election campaign (and reported to the county auditor on his own campaign financial report) by the spokeswoman for Minnesota Proppant.

Nopar is correct. We posted extensively about the fight against the proposed sand plant in St. Charles, drawing from coverage by the Rochester Bulletin, the Winona papers and other Minnesota media. Shame on the county commissioner for erasing the role of citizens working to preserve the quality of life in their community.

Photo: A frac sand mine.

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Mar 31, 2016

According to an article in the March 19, 2016 print edition of the Morris Sun Tribune, Stevens County's Baker Township has passed an ordinance that restricts new livestock operations to 2500 animal units, as well as establishing setbacks and acreage requirements for feedlots.

But the citizens of Baker Township and their hyper-local elected leaders aren't letting themselves become waifs among forces. Instead, they've passed the new ordinance described in the scanned article below. On the other side, Minnesota Milk has passed a resolution to gut the power of townships to respond to their citizens. Among the whereases:

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Milk Producers Association supports the development of a permitting, environmental review and compliance framework which would provide greater certainty with respect to permit and compliance requirements and timelines; and

WHEREAS , activist attorneys and/or special interest groups are misleading and influencing townships to adopt arbitrary and onerous zoning ordinances that conflict with federal, state and county permits, ordinances and other regulations which ultimately threatens Minnesota animal agriculture;

It's insulting to suggest that residents of local townships are mere pawns and putty in the hands People Who Aren't From Around Here. Instead, testimony from people in places like Baker Township value a rural quality of life that ginormous factory farms destroy.

Here's the article from the Morris Sun Tribune:

Photo: One of Riverview's giant dairy barns.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

A ban on frac sand mining in Winona County would be possible, but fraught with legal concerns.

And a voter referendum on a ban? No chance, at least in Minnesota.

That was the opinion the Winona County Attorney’s Office provided this week to county commissioners and residents, amid a renewed swell of calls for the county to consider an outright ban on the practice. . . .

Minnesota law does not prevent imposing a total ban on frac sand mining, processing and transportation operations in Winona County, according to a new legal analysis released today by the Land Stewardship Project (LSP). The analysis, “Legal and Practical Considerations in Support of a Zoning Ban on Frac Sand Operations in Winona County: A Review of Minnesota Statutes, Case Law, and County Policy,” was written by attorney Leili Fatehi and documents why a ban on any new frac sand mining, processing and transportation operations is by far the most appropriate policy for Winona County to adopt.

"No Minnesota statutory or case law supports a conclusion that counties can't entirely ban frac sand operations by zoning ordinance, nor, for that matter, that a ban is legal only when the county can prove regulations would be insufficient,” said Fatehi, who is an expert on legal and policy issues related to the environment, health, science and technology, and who teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School. “The reality is that, not only will courts presume such a ban by zoning ordinance is legal, but it's also easier for a county to defend than a denial of a permit through regulatory measures."

Since June 2015, LSP has led a grassroots campaign calling for a frac sand ban in Winona County. This southeastern Minnesota county has been heavily targeted in recent years with proposals to mine and process vast quantities of sand for the use of the oil and gas industry in hydraulic fracturing in other states. . . .

Goodhue County Public Works Director Greg Isakson reported at the March 1 County Board meeting that a resolution had been drafted stating that the County is opposed to the proposed Zip Rail project that was suspended last month by MnDOT. The resolution will be sent to Mn/DOT, Commissioner Zelle and to Olmsted County, and will be added to the comments about the content in the Alternatives Analysis document.

The resolution is strongly worded and states: "This project is not consistent with local plans, and it is presumptuous and downright wrong to imply passive support for a project simply because the County's Comprehensive Plan is mute to the issue. It would create substantial and unacceptable adverse environmental, economic and social impacts on the lands and citizens of Goodhue County. The Goodhue County Board of Commissioners hereby declares there is no support for, and there is opposition to the Zip Rail project as presented in past meetings, past reports, and envisioned in the last study before the project was suspended, specifically the Alternatives Analysis project for the Investment Plan and the Tier 1 EIS study."

The resolution is important because comments in the Alternatives Analysis infer that local governments and communities were in favor of the Zip Rail project. Rechtzigel noted that over 25 cities, townships and agricultural co-ops in Goodhue County have also sent in resolutions stating that they are opposed to the project.

Commissioner Brad Anderson suggested that when the new County Comprehensive Plan is updated, it should state that whatever project comes forward in the future, it must benefit Goodhue County or approval will not be granted.

Why was this resolution necessary? Isn't the ZipRail Project dead? Sadly, private rail promoters have been bitten by the walking corpse of ZipRail and simply seem to keep coming.

We're not sure from the Cannon Falls Beacon exactly where the MNDOT report implied local support, but we did find this sort of thing in the text

Clearly, the Goodhue County Board doesn't think the project was consistent with its land use plans, and will be strengthening language when updating its new County Comprehensive Plan.

Secondly,the original business plan for the North American High Speed Rail Group's private "Velos" high speed passenger rail line between the Twin Cities and Rochester implied that local governments had reviewed and approved the concept. We wrote back in November:

The first was this statement on page 3 for Stage I: Proof of Concept Assessment: Rail and Real Estate:

Obtained acceptance and approval by Federal, State, County and Municipal governments.

The suspicions of citizens living in "fly over" area where no stops have been planned seem confirmed by this sort of assertion. We have not found "approval" of the project--or the Ziprail before it--by Goodhue County. Quite the contrary.

Moreover, while the spokester for the private bullet train and other supporters frequently note publicly that their project is much different from the Ziprail, the business plan asserts that earlier studies for the Ziprail are being used to support their project. We're not sure they can have it both ways.

We'll watch to see if the private group cribs the "pro" concept language from the MNDOT report. Perhaps more importantly, we'll look to see whether the Twin Cities press manages to report on local government opposition as well, rather than lazily spinning this as a tale of angry residents against the shiny thing.

No public funds are requested for the project, with all project planning and capital funding requirements provided through private sources, and all operating costs supported by farebox revenues as well as related commercial, institutional, mixed use and industrial development revenues.

Fortunately, present landowners won't be facing Jezebel's covetous stinkeye, but it's possibly for private railroads--even those that aren't using public money to build and operate their projects--to use eminent domain (condemnation).

Railroad corporations have the power to acquire land by purchase or eminent domain. This applies to any land that is needed for roadways, spur and side tracks, rights-of-way, depot grounds, yards, grounds for gravel pits, machine shops, warehouses, elevators, depots, station houses, and all other structures necessary for the use and operation of the road.

Every foreign and domestic railroad corporation shall have power to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, all necessary roadways, spur and side tracks, rights-of-way, depot grounds, yards, grounds for gravel pits, machine shops, warehouses, elevators, depots, station houses, and all other structures necessary or convenient for the use, operation, or enjoyment of the road, and may make with any other railroad company, such arrangements for the use of any portion of its tracks and roadbeds as it may deem necessary.

According to the North American High Speed Rail Group's business plan for the "Velos" private train, side real estate developments along the line will pay for the train, rather than ticket sales. In short, residents along the line face the distinct possibility that a private corporation with absolutely no track record can force them to sell their land along MnDOT right-of-ways, so that the corporation can use it to underwrite speculative real estate developments.

It is the North American High Speed Rail Group's interest to plan, design, build and operate this passenger rail corridor through a private funding approach. In this way a full range of economic development opportunities that complement the passenger rail service can be included in a new financial model. When combined, the economics of a project like this are integrated and amplified in a new business model focused on a larger development landscape.

We'd wondered how Social Wendy would acquire property for that vision if the family farmers now occupying the land weren't willing to quit that imaginary landscape.

We'll go out on a limb here and suggest that this project is the sort of pro-professional policy that Thomas Frank decries (in a different context in a recent column for the New York Times). People in the way of a shiny new thing to convey the New Economy’s winners 77 miles between The Cities and Rochester? What losers.

Appleton has a message for the state of Minnesota, and will tell it first to a home audience.

It is hosting a community meeting on the proposal to reopen the Prairie Correctional Facility at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the Appleton Armory, 25 North Munsterman Street.

Organizers are encouraging residents, elected officials and interested people from throughout the region to attend.

The first goal is to let people know what the reopening of the facility would mean for the region’s economy, said Gary Hendrickx, a member of the Swift County Board of Commissioners and Appleton business owner.

Organizers hope that getting the message to more people will help state decision makers see the importance and benefits of the proposal, he explained.

If you plan to attend, please be respectful.

Photo: The Walking Dead prison guards. What would The Governor say?

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below: